Hey guys, I just saw this magazine on the front page of Lemmy and decided to check it out. I know this space is not for me, so I hope it's okay that I'm posting here.

I just wanted to pop in here and say that I think it's great that you guys have a space to talk about issues that you're facing and it seems to be overall very positive and fair discussions. I just want you all to know that I love and respect all of you for taking a positive approach to masculinity.

I do have a question for you, and maybe it can help others visiting here to see if this space is for them:

What is one thing that you wish more people knew about men or the experience of being a man?

Men face numerous issues: Violence against men is often accepted, forced conscription, high suicide rates, our life expectancy lags way behind women, and so forth. These subjects have been discussed to death, to the point where saying any new can seem impossible, yet precious little is being done to alleviate these issues. It can often seem that as long as women are doing better, everything is fine. Nothing else needs to change.

And so perhaps the biggest problem faced by men at large is the belittling of serious issues.

Throughout history, better conditions have always been something people have had to fight for, and so I guess the duty lies on those of us who are able, to do what we can for the men in our lives and perhaps even beyond. And to convince others who are able to do the same.

I don't know if this place has died, so this is just in case it hasn't.

When I tentatively suggested dropping out of uni, my parents laughed at the idea. Whenever they would teach me something, they would get offended if I did not succeed within a few tries. They always insist that I should just try harder, and get mad whenever I try to take a break.

Those in my writing group are nice, but would they still be if my writing was trash? If I showed up and wasted their time with garbage, if I deluded myself into thinking I was better than I am, or simply did not align with them politically?

I only got together with my study group because we figured that it would be a good constellation for studying and get a good semester project going without burning ourselves out in the process.

My brothers seem to lose respect for me whenever we do something together and I don't live up to their expectations as the oldest.

When I do something with friends, they are either impressed at the speed at which I learn, or we do something they find as natural as breathing where I struggle. And then they wonder if there is something wrong with me.

And so I wonder: If I let myself be incompetent, would anybody care? Interfacing with the world is a choice I make, because I care too much about my parents and siblings to leave them and only live in the moment for myself. But if I one day woke up were no longer competent, would anybody care about me?

Hope this fit. Figured I would try a mental health post, as I imagine I am not the only one wondering about this.

I couldn't even make it ten minutes into this video, so hats off to Shoe0nHead who compiled this shitstorm of misandry that people sent her in reply to her previous video on the Male Loneliness Epidemic.

It is really heartbreaking to see how many people do not care one bit about men. And then realizing this outpouring of pure hate is just acceptable. What a society we live in!

I'm not sure if I will ever watch the rest of this video, but I thought I'd share this for those of you who have a stronger stomach for hate.

(Headline edited because the article shows it was his father who called him a legend.)

Joe Stratton's protest at Stafford School in Caterham, Surrey is thought to have seen an alteration to uniform policy, so shorts can be worn in hot weather outside of the summer term.

With climate change affecting us more and more, dress codes should be revisited and adjusted.

A new study finds evidence that occupational gender bias has consequences for men who may consider entering healthcare, early education, or domestic fields (HEED). The findings indicate that men avoid HEED careers because they expect discrimination and worry about acceptance and judgment of others. The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, sheds light on the complexities of occupational gender bias and its societal repercussions.

Please read the linked article before commenting.

There was a post on r/leftwingmaleadvocates which asked, "Are incels bad?" One of the comments said the following:

"Yea problem is dating is so rigged with the apps and no cultural celebration/rolls for men to be fulfilled and desirable, that about 80% of guys probably fall into the category of incel these days. There are actually whole countries like Japan or China where MOST men are permanently single and have no hope of ever getting a partner or relationship. Feminism has been IMMENSELY vindictive and bigoted culturally, but there are also big socioeconomic factors at play here. There are literally tens of millions of guys out there that could be considered incel, and even if your not an incel dating is still extremely difficult which is just as much a problem. I think the incel label is almost like the label ‘thug’. It takes a social issue and crushes you by making it a -you- thing. Oh you say a lot of women/society don’t even treat you as human, hmmm sounds like there must be something wrong with YOU, work harder and pull yourself up by the bootstraps!"

I replied to the comment by saying that 80% of men are not incels. In public, I have seen average looking men with girlfriends. In my experience, what this Redditor said is not true. I was downvoted for saying that. I disagree with this comment because it seems to be "black-pilled."

There was also a post on r/mensrights which was about a guy sharing his personal experience. He said he was able to get laid while being broke. He said women don't care about money much. He was also downvoted.

Some MRAs (who probably have trouble dating) seem to have black-pilled beliefs. The black-pill says if a man isn't in the top 20% he is doomed. He won't be able to get casual sex or a girlfriend. Some take it to a more extreme level and say a man has to be 6 ft tall, have a 6 figure income, 6 pack abs, and a 6 inch penis.

The black-pill is a derivative of the red-pill, but it has less nuance. Rollo Tomassi is supposed to be the inventor of the red-pill. In one of his videos he said, women are attracted to 20% of men. The 20% is subjective for each woman. He never said 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. Someone misunderstood what he said and it spread throughout the internet.

By saying 20%, it means women are pickier than men. Maybe some women think less than 20% are attractive, and some think more than 20%. It's not an exact 20%. A man can be in the 20% (attractive) for one woman and be in the unattractive category for another.

Some people say 80% of women swipe right on 20% of men on Tinder. I don't know how true that is. I haven't read the data on it. Black-pillers claim this is true.

In my opinion, average men are not doomed. I think these black pilled beliefs are harmful to the men who hold them.

I think learning about men's issues is bad for mental health. If you are a man, it definitely is. Feminists don't care about men's issues. If they did, there would be more positive changes occurring for men. It's a futile exercise to debate feminists. It's better for them to wake up by themselves.

I identify as anti-feminism, not anti-feminist. Anti-feminist sounds like I am against a group of people. I'm not against any group of people's rights. Anti-feminism sounds like I am against the ideology, which I am. I guess that's the proper term.

I have been reading articles from New Male Studies. It is a journal about men's issues. They are a group of professors and scholars who write about men's issues. Here is their website: https://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms.

Abstract:

"Masculine identity has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past ten thousand years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem by equating sexual equality with sexual sameness, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued--that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity‚ at all. No solution will be possible without challenging pervasive assumptions about both boys and men."

Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2012). Misandry and emptiness: Masculine identity in a toxic cultural environment. New Male Studies Journal, 1(1), 4-18.

I read this article. It is very disturbing that there is a lot of misandry in our society. It causes men to commit suicide. The New Male Studies journal goes against everything that feminism teaches.

Feminists say misandry is not real. I searched on Google to see if there are any articles about misandry. According to scholars, misandry is definitely real.

I read an article today about misandry. It's on scholar.google.com for free. Here is the abstract:

No published science paper demonstrates misogyny exists. Data on both implicit and explicit gender attitudes shows males substantially favouring females – philogyny – or, at worst, gender neutrality. This is hidden by elision with the wider notion of sexism; but there’s no evidence for hostile
sexism, and hypothesised benevolent sexism is fatally flawed in operational definition. The mode whereby sexism supposedly causes harm -- stereotyping (stereotype threat) -- has been debunked; likewise inter-
sexual dominance, removing any theoretical basis. Possible male harm by control is belied in women being found the controlling party. Misogyny / sexism in being defined circularly is unfalsifiable, therefore non-scientific conceptualisation: ideology itself actually hostile sexism (misandry, which is shown to be real but unseen).

Moxon, S. P. "Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny–and misandry." New Male Studies 7.2 (2018): 26-42.

I don't totally agree with this article. I think there might be a few individuals who are misogynists. However, I don't think there is any systemic misogyny like feminists claim. The misogynists are probably very few and lack any real power to influence society.

A few weeks ago, I took this test. I was accused of misogyny, so I wanted to see if I am a misogynist. I scored a 0 on hostile sexism and very low on benevolent sexism. The items from this test are mentioned in the article too. It is a flawed test.

In the department next to mine, they hired 5 women and 0 men. That made me wonder if there is discrimination against men in job hiring. I found some studies about the discrimination of men in job hiring.

Abstract:

Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women’s disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers’ callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.

Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund and others, Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment, European Sociological Review, Volume 38, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 337–354, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab043

Abstract:

Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532/full?utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychology&id=147830

Abstract:

Scholars have documented ethnic and gender discrimination across labour markets since the 1970s by using field experiments (correspondence tests) in which pairs of equally qualified applications are sent to employers with job openings. In these experiments, discrimination is measured by documenting group differences in callbacks. However, the gendered nature of ethnic discrimination has been neglected thus far in this literature. Drawing on the results of a correspondence test, this study presents evidence of extensive ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labour market against applicants with Arabic and North African names but no evidence of discrimination against women. However, the findings also reveal gendered ethnic employer preferences: employers in male-dominated occupations practice gender overcompensation favouring female-named applicants, whereas employers in female-dominated occupations practice both ethnic and gender overcompensation, favouring foreign-named men in particular.

Moa Bursell, The Multiple Burdens of Foreign-Named Men—Evidence from a Field Experiment on Gendered Ethnic Hiring Discrimination in Sweden, European Sociological Review, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2014, Pages 399–409, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu047

Intersectionality, Checking Privilege, Policing Language, Equity, Lived Experiences, Critical Theory.

These are all concepts and ideas that upon first examination make excellent tools for advancing ideals of egalitarian principles.

Human beings as individuals tend to be quite self serving. And in a group can often be even worse.

But as a society things run more smoothly when egalitarian principles hold the steering wheel.

Because of this, we need tools to help us maintain these principles despite conscious and subconscious (or even unconscious) efforts to infringe upon them.

I'd like to add a caveat here, that I may speak nearly authoritatively and I may have thoughtful ideas. But I'm not an expert. These are just my thoughts.

When trying to address men's issues from an egalitarian perspective. It seems that many want to vilify the tools that misandrists have been using to vilify men during the last few decades.

But some of these tools are the way that they are because feminism has coopted the egalitarian civil rights movement and misandrists have co-opted egalitarian tools vulnerable to misuse for misandrist purposes.

So, I'll go over the concepts I've listed and explain

1. My understanding of how they were originally intended as egalitarian tools
2. Why I believe they are flawed.
3. How they are now exploited for misandrist ends.
4. How we may still try to use them, but in a more responsible manner.

I can place the concepts in three groups:

The first group is "Checking Privilege, Policing Language, and Critical Theory"

What their egalitarian purpose is:

These are concepts that mostly started surfacing in the post-Marxist era. The general idea is that the privileged group has such control over communications that they can shape people's ideology.

As in, if you ask for 15 minutes breaks every 2 hours, it's because you're lazy. And lazy people get fired. But it takes some time talking with like minded people to recognize that without that 15 minutes break, you have much greater chance of injury and death, so it's a completely reasonable request.

But if the boss or a friend of the boss is there every time workers congregate, then there's no room for new ideas to form.

Basically, the privileged end up with a stranglehold control through ideology.

Policing Language: The oppressor's ideology has infiltrated common language parlance. Language has to be reverted back to eliminate that influence.

Checking Privilege: Those part of privileged groups and who are therefore prone to unwittingly promote oppressor ideology should self-limit their behavior and influence.

Critical Theory: This one is quite the thing. It's like for those who do debate competition, you're given a topic and told what position to take. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the position, you will debate to defend that position. But you crank it up to 1000%. You spend an enormous amount of effort and research to vilify the ones you've identified as the oppressor and present the ones you've identified as the oppressed as constant innocent victims in all circumstances. This is where the concept of "Everything is misogynist" comes from.

Basically, using this tools you can stop the ideology of the oppressors dead in its tracks.

Why they are flawed:

Simply put, these are not egalitarian tools. Then are inherently tools of oppression. If used by they "oppressed" with success then the "oppressed" group become the oppressors and are no longer oppressed.

How they are now exploited for misandrist ends:

Policing Language: This is everywhere, in addition to changing all high status job position to be gender neutral without also doing the same for low status job positions. Language like "toxic masculinity", "fragile male ego", "manspreading", "manterruption", etc... have been popularized. All of it ends up demonizing men and masculinity.

Checking Privilege: This also takes the form of "do better", call your bros out for bad behavior and also "Toxic Masculinity" again. It's all about make sure that men never speak up for themselves.

Critical Theory: This is how feminism has been turned into such a powerhouse of misandry. Critical Gender Theory is the foundation of misandrist feminist ideology, it is also the foundation of much of sociology, some of psychology and some of institutional policy. I believe that it is the root source of misandrist laws and policies such as the VAWA act (which erases male victims of domestic violence and the prevalence of male victims of stranger violence) and the Duluth model (which effectively puts the presumption of guilt on men during domestic violence incidents even when the woman is the offender).

How we may still try to use them more responsibly

Policing Language: I think we need to erase some of the unnecessarily gendered, reductionist and vilifying terms such as: "Toxic Masculinity", "Patriarchy", "manspreading", etc.. etc.. But we should not be trying to introduce "reverse" gendered terms that vilify women.

Checking Privilege: I see no need for this in terms of popular or political advocacy. Maybe in the context of interpersonal relationships a privileged person may want to "check their privilege" in order to not appear like a douche and be tactful towards those who lack these privileges. But that's not really the topic here.

Critical Theory: NEVER EVER. Kill it with fire, then nuke it from orbit.

Now for the second group: "Intersectionality and Equity"

What their egalitarian purpose is:

In terms of egalitarian purpose they are somewhat different but complimentary. Intersectionality is a great tool to identify and recognize areas where discrimination may happen.

If you look at men vs women for a particular statistic maybe you won't see a difference. But if you look at poor men vs poor women, maybe you'll see a difference. Or maybe a small difference that's not a big deal turns into a huge difference that's critical to look into.

Once you've identified a difference, then you're faced with understanding the cause and whether action needs to be taken.

This is where equity comes in. Equity claims that the outcome is what count. IMO, this is quite a radical claim. But at the same time, equal opportunity is not sufficient. I'll put it this way: being more irresponsible than most while a teenager should not doom you to a lifetime of near slave wages. Which, I suspect is almost the case in France where you must remain on track all the way through from highschool to your career or you're f*cked.

Why they are flawed:

Intersectionality: Intersectionality based on identity groups (gender, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background etc...) and then assesses how discriminated against that intersectional group is within society.

It is flawed in soooo many ways:

1. There are too many groups and intersectional groups to account for. And even then, an individual is not the sum of their intersectional groups. You're just not getting the whole story and you're going to leave people out of your analysis.

2. It leads to the formation of political interest groups: Men's rights advocates, feminists, BLM, etc... The ultimate effect of such an approach is that if you belong to a group that is well represented in the political space, then your interests are well protected. If you do not, then your interests will lack representation. This is not how egalitarianism works.

3. By far, the greatest source of inequality is economic equality. All of this intersectionality tends to be a distraction away from class inequality.

Basically, I think intersectionality is find to try and recognize that a problem exist, but it's not a tool for diagnosing a problem and it is most certainly not a tool for fixing a problem. You do not treat discrimination with more discrimination.

Equity:

Setting aside the inherently radical nature of the concept for the moment. Equity is inherently problematic. A little bit like intersectionality, you can evaluate equity along any number of metrics: Sexual success, life satisfaction, number of children, etc...

But people are different and have different goals and desires and values. This makes total Equity literally impossible. There's just no such thing as "Equity" there's only "Equity" along a certain axis. And the same as with intersectionality, interest groups will start to do some tug of war to decide which metrics to use.

As I've explained before, equality of opportunity is not enough. But true Equity doesn't actually exist. Still we need to consider equality of outcome to get closer to egalitarian ideals. Just, let's do it in moderation.

How they are now exploited for misandrist ends:

It's pretty simple really. During intersectional analysis, the male identity (and also the white identity, and also frequently the poor identity) is ignored.

During Equity analysis, only metrics whose outcomes suggests that more resource and attention need to be given to women are evaluated. Those metrics that suggests that resources and attention need to be given to men are ignored, hidden or downplayed.

How we may still try to use them more responsibly

Just keep advocating for men (and white people, and poor people) to be more prominently included in intersectional analysis.

Do the same for Equity metrics (suicide victims, victims of violent crimes, victims of emotional domestic violence leading to suicide, homelessness, life expectancy, etc...)

In terms of how to do so responsibly. I think it's more of a systemic problem. In this one you play the game with the rules it has even if you don't like the rules. And if the rules are bad you also advocate to change the rules, but don't act like the rules aren't the way that they are, because then you're just going to lose.

In short, in terms of male advocacy, we advocate for men's interests in using these tools.

In terms of egalitarian advocacy we advocate to treat the issue, not the identity. In practice, this should usually mean more resources and assistance for poor people.

Last, and maybe least? Lived Experiences

This is the one that I know the least about. But I think it is crucial. When trying to find balance during the creation of institutional policy or the creation of an ideology it can be very difficult to accommodate the perspectives of 8 billion people all of which having their own unique brand of irrationality.

But, learning from and respecting the "Lived Experienced" of individuals as it is understood by these individuals is crucial for achieving egalitarian outcomes.

Some people may believe that more children is better, others maybe can't stand children. Each individual's perspective should, in principle, be considered.

Patronizing a group of people and giving them something they don't want and saying that it's for their own good, they just don't know any better is wrong headed. I might lose many people here, but I think this counts just as much for "These men don't understand that accepting that 'toxic masculinity' is the source of their problems so we're going to have to brainwash them harder" as well as "These anti-vaxxers just don't understand that getting vaccinated is going to save their lives, so we're going to make it so inconvenient for them not to get vaccinated, they'll effectively have no choice". Mind you the anti-vaxxers example isn't perfect because the true motivation isn't to help them, those who can't take the vaccine and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work well. But the point is, you can't claim to be doing it for their own good: you have to respect their lived experience which says they don't want it.

How it is exploited for misandrist ends:

"Women are scarred to be alone with men", "Something, something poisoned M&Ms therefore all men are evil".

The lived experience of women is reinterpreted as universal fact and the men's lived experience is erased or minimized.

How we may still try to use them responsibly

Talk about men's lived experiences and make sure that society is just as responsible to accommodate men's lived experiences as it is to accommodate men's lived experiences.

However, and I get so much pushback on this one. The ONLY way to do this in an egalitarian way is to give all interested parties a voice (whether directly or indirectly by repeating their talking points) whenever the issue is discussed.

For example if you're talking about Title IX witch hunts, you need to acknowledge and address the issue of rapes being so incredibly difficult to prove which is a situation that may lead a rape victim to be forced to go to classes everyday in the same room as with the person that raped them. But also acknowledge, that you just can't let unscrupulous people weaponize institutions against innocent victims through false accusations.

In conclusion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot. Let's not look like fools by advocating against egalitarian principles just because they happen to be successfully misused by bigots today.

Edit: I removed some most likely incorrect assumptions about Marxism.

Feminism Was Never About Equality - TFF 2.0
The Fiamengo File 2.0
The Birth of Feminism: https://youtu.be/V8QgjbPeESgBlog

Great channel from a retired PHD who's been studying feminism and it's affects on modern academia and society. Good info.

A few months ago, there was a post on the antifeminist sub. The post was a screenshot from an incel website that was posted on the Nothowgirlswork sub. There was a comment from nothowgirlswork which roasted the incel post.

The incel said he felt anxiety when he walked on the streets and saw women. The comment from nothowgirlswork was ridiculing him for feeling fear of women. He didn't say anything misogynistic. There are some incels (on incel websites) who condone horrible things like raping women. This post was not like that.

It made me think that society expects men to be fearless and brave. Men are human and fear is a normal emotion that everyone has. It's normal to feel anxiety around women, if the man has been traumatized in the past. Maybe the incel was traumatized by a woman in the past. People shouldn't judge someone without knowing them.

The truth is women can be just as dangerous as men. Society has to stop thinking women are not as dangerous.

If a woman said she felt anxiety around men, redditors would be supporting her. They would say men are rapists and she should be scared of them. She would get all the empathy and sympathy. Reddit shows what people think secretly. Many people in society have this double standard too.

Based on section 3.2 of the Reference Book of Men's Issues

If a woman doesn't feel she's ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, she has various options after the act of sex (in most of the Western world). This includes the morning-after pill, abortion, adoption, and safe-haven laws.

(Yes, we are aware that in parts of the US these rights are under attack or have been severely limited. That does not take away from the main point here.)

Men have no comparable legal rights. If you're a man in the same situation and you're not ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, you can only hope that the woman decides to take one of her options. As Karen DeCrow (previous president of the National Organization for Women) put it:

The courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

The New York Times article “Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?” explains the problem:

Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments. [...]

The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible. [...]

Court-ordered child support does make sense, say, in the case of a divorce, when a man who is already raising a child separates from the child’s mother, and when the child’s mother retains custody of the child. In such cases, expectations of continued financial support recognize and stabilize a parent’s continued caregiving role in a child’s life. However, just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.

Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy. [...]

If we agree that men and women deserve equal rights, and have equal agency, then this is an area that urgently needs to be addressed. Trapping men into a parenthood they never wanted, and never signed up for, is cruel and unjust.

I have noticed previous reposts from RBoMI did not get much engagement if at all, so I am going for a single topic per post now.

Men make up a large majority of the prison population: 93% in the United States (2006) [1] and 96% in England & Wales (2013) [2]. Men do commit more crime overall, but numerous studies show that even accounting for legally relevant factors (like crime and criminal history), men receive substantially harsher sentences. Crimes with women as victims also receive harsher sentences.

Examples/evidence: Sonja B. Starr of the University of Michigan controlled for legally relevant factors and found that men receive 63% longer sentences on average. In addition, women were more likely to avoid charges, convictions, and incarceration in the first place [3]. David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia controlled for similar factors and also found that men (and blacks) receive harsher sentences [4].

Last, blacks and males are also less likely to get no prison term when that option is available; less likely to receive downward departures; and more likely to receive upward adjustments and, conditioned on having a downward departure, receive smaller reductions than whites and females.

A group of researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso summarize previous research and explain that women receiving milder sentencing "may be one of the best established facts regarding criminal justice outcomes". It has been found in a wide range of studies since the 1980s, and in numerous different jurisdictions in the United States. They add to the research by looking specifically into different types of crime, finding some differences [5].

For both property and drug offending, females are less likely to be sentenced to prison and also receive shorter sentences if they are sentenced to prison. For violent offending, however, females are no less likely than males to receive prison time, but for those who do, females receive substantially shorter sentences than males.

Cassia Spohn of Arizona State University provides an overview of many other studies showing similar sentencing disparities (in sentence length and likelihood of getting jail time in the first place) [1]. She also cites interesting work on the perception of gender by judges as the reason for these disparities.

The explanation offered by Spohn and Beichner (2000) also focuses on judges’ perceptions and stereotypes of men and women. They suggest that the findings of their study lend credence to assertions that court officials attempt to simplify and routinize the sentencing process by relying on stereotypes that link defendant characteristics such as race or ethnicity and gender to perceptions of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and risk of recidivism. They note that criminal justice officials interviewed for the study admitted that they viewed female offenders, particularly those with dependent children, differently from male offenders.

Another study from the group of researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso looked at the gender of the victim, finding that crimes against women receive harsher sentences than crimes against men [6]. Cassia Spohn cites Williams, Demuth, and Holcomb (2007) who controlled for legally relevant factors and found that offenders convicted of crimes against women were more than two-and-a-half times more likely to be sentenced to death [1]. Another study looked specifically at vehicular homicide and found gender bias [7].

In particular, victim characteristics are important determinants of sentencing among vehicular homicides, where victims are basically random and where the optimal punishment model predicts that victim characteristics should be ignored. Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 56 percent longer sentences. Drivers who kill blacks get 53 percent shorter sentences.

The harsher treatment of men in the justice system has effects on men long after they do their time. From The New York Times article "Out of Trouble, but Criminal Records Keep Men Out of Work" [8]:

The share of American men with criminal records — particularly black men — grew rapidly in recent decades as the government pursued aggressive law enforcement strategies, especially against drug crimes. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, those men are having particular trouble finding work. Men with criminal records account for about 34 percent of all nonworking men ages 25 to 54, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

1 ("Sentencing Disparity and Discrimination: A Focus on Gender", chapter 4 of "How Do Judges Decide? The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment" by Cassia Spohn)

2 (British House of Commons Library document “Prison Population Statistics”)

3 and alt source (“Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases” (2012) by Sonja B. Starr)

4 (“Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts” (2001) by David B. Mustard)

5 (“Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?” (2006) by S. Fernando Rodriguez, Theodore R. Curry, & Gang Lee)

6 (“Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes” (2004) by Theodore R. Curry, Gang Lee, & S. Fernando Rodriguez)

7 (“The Determinants of Punishment: Deterrence, Incapacitation and Vengeance” by Edward L. Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote)

8 (The New York Times article "Out of Trouble, but Criminal Records Keep Men Out of Work")

Men get so many mixed messages in today's society, from being called toxic to being pushed to be top dog (or else you're a loser). There are lots of expectations put on men, and various ways men rebel against those.

What can be done to address society's negative views of men and masculinity? And how can we formulate what healthy masculinity looks like, so we can teach that to our boys?

I'm not sure if anyone else is getting explicit gay sex images for "related posts", but they are showing up for me. I'm not opposed to pornography, but in this context it doesn't need to be here.

I've been using the website https://kbin.social/m/men, perhaps a different client would be better? Or maybe there is some other way to limit recommendations?

Anyone else seeing this?

Sometimes I enjoy talking to feminists and misandrists. It helps me to understand their viewpoints. Some feminists are open to debate and some are not. I don't try to change their minds. It can be pretty toxic.

I was messaged by feminists on reddit. They read my post history. I haven't said anything misogynistic. They called me an "incel" and a "misogynist". I remained calm when they hurled insults. If I lashed out, it would prove to them I am a misogynist. They want their opponents to get angry.

One woman who messaged me said she is proud to be a misandrist. She said men are worthless, driven by hormones, and many other nonsense things. She also said women don't perpetrate domestic violence. Eventually I got her to calm down and she became more respectful.

I think a lot of feminists misunderstand what MRAs believe in and want. There was a question in the r/askfeminists sub if feminists would collaborate with MRAs. Many of the feminists said no. One commenter said MRAs are misogynists. Another said men are not oppressed, so there's no need for MRAs. Some people hate us for doing the right thing.

Some feminists have told me there's a difference between feminists and misandrists. Most feminists think they're normal people. I think some misandrists use feminism to their benefit. Governments and corporations definitely use feminism against men.

I don't know too many feminists in real life. I don't talk about feminism or politics with the women I know. It is silently understood that most people believe in equality. I'm also an egalitarian.

After knowing about men's issues, I don't want to pretend like they don't exist. If I started dating a feminist, I don't think my political views would align with hers. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to talk about men's issues.

Do you think it's better to avoid dating women who identify as feminists? If you date a feminist, is it a good idea to talk about men's issues?

This is an excellent article by Cathy Young, exposing some of the widespread misandry within feminism.

I don't agree with every point she makes. I think the 1848 demonizing of men is way more serious and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. But that doesn't take away from her main point: feminism is full of misandry, and if they want to be taken seriously by men, they need to address that.

Jobs in which you directly care for other people, like teachers and nurses, have traditionally been dominated by women. However, several parts of the world seem to experience a shortage of workers in these areas.

The usual left wing answer to this problem is to argue for better wages and working conditions. I was thinking that we could brainstorm solutions for the gendered aspects as well.

Since the majority of people working in these fields are women, it stands to reason that men are a potentially untapped source of labor. In addition, the successful push for more women in STEM has shown that it is possible to make certain fields more attractive for a specific gender through political means.

Getting more men into these fields would obviously be good for society, as these are critical areas that need to be staffed properly. It would potentially be good for men as well:

• These are the kinds of jobs that provide people with a sense of meaning and purpose in their life, something I believe is an increasing problem for many men.

• Men have an increasingly hard time finding success in classical education. This could serve as an alternative career path for those whose strengths do not lie in academia.

• Young boys struggle a lot in school, and male teachers might have a different perspective on this that female ones.

• It would provide children with more male role models, showing them the breath of what men are capable off.

Now, I know that this is a small space without much political pull, consisting of people from different parts of the world. But if we want to differentiate ourselves from menslib on reddit and mensliberation on here, I think it would be prudent to not only address inequalities, but also brainstorm solutions.

So imagine for a moment that you have a seat in your government, or are an advisor for someone with political power. What would you suggest in order to convince men to join women dominated fields?

Let's bring some positivity into this place.

You will be no better than the people you'll fight against. I've seen it happen on every pro-men subreddit, and if this place isn't aggressively moderated to dispel hopelessness, negativity, and prejudice, it'll just turn into hate.

Incel, mens-rights activist, red-pill, black-pill, MGTOW, etc. don't let the haters join otherwise this community will end up just like the aforementioned.

Egalitarian from a male perspective is what we should be, not pro-male (I say male because of sex and gender).

Be excellent to each other.

Section 2: Issues of life, death, well-being, and safety

1. Homelessness

Overview: Men consistently make up a majority of the homeless population. They're especially common among the long-term homeless, the homeless living on the street (instead of a shelter) [1], and the homeless deaths. Despite this, we're actually less eager to support homeless men [2].

Approximately 70 per cent of Canada’s homeless are male. Dion Oxford of Toronto’s Salvation Army Gateway shelter for men tells us it is harder to raise funds for men’s shelters. “Single, middle-aged homeless men are simply not sexy for the funder,” he says.

This is likely related to male disposability. This can also be seen in an article from the British newspaper The Independent on the “growing problem” of homelessess among women [3]. The author calls it “distressing” that 1/4 homeless people in shelters and 1/10 homeless people on the street are women.

Examples/evidence: One study conducted in New York City and Philadelphia found that those who are chronically homeless are overwhelmingly male (and black). 82.3% were male in New York City, and 71.1% were male in Philadelphia [4]. UK homeless charity St Mungo's Broadway found that men made up 87% of rough sleepers in London (those on the street instead of in shelters) [5]. Another UK homeless charity provides a break-down of homeless deaths by age and gender [6].

Images: http://i.imgur.com/ZaBwbCh.png

For more, compare the number of instances of "John Doe" to "Jane Doe" in the Toronto Homeless Memorial (it's 135 to 13) [7].

One survey of homeless people in the United States found that homeless men were less likely to have access to health insurance and government benefits [8].

[1] http://bit.ly/1wQy1zt (coursepage for Sociology 498G at the University of Maryland)

[2] http://bit.ly/105BHF7 (Globe and Mail article “Should universities be opening men’s centres?”)

[3] http://ind.pn/1csgMuD (The Independent article “Homeless and broken: how women are catching up with men”)

[4] http://1.usa.gov/1E4g0lv (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration document "Current Statistics on the Prevalence and Characteristics of People Experiencing Homelessness in the United States")

[5] http://bit.ly/1EY5Ve4 (St Mungo's Broadway “Street to Home Bulletin 2013/14” report)

[6] http://bit.ly/1wd4hkF (document on mortality among homeless people from Crisis, a UK charity for the homeless)

[7] http://bit.ly/13TY55G (Toronto Homeless Memorial's list of deaths from homelessness)

[8] http://bit.ly/1GGYLhO (Healing Hands article "Single Males: The Homeless Majority")

2. Homicide, robbery, and physical assault

Overview: Although women are more often the victims of sexual assault, men are more often the victims of homicide, robbery, and the more injurious types of physical assault. Some dismiss this by noting that men are also more likely to commit these crimes, but a murder victim doesn't receive any solace from his murderer being the same gender as him. (This argument is also often applied to dismiss higher victimization rates among other groups like racial minorities: “that's just blacks killing other blacks, who cares”.)

Examples/evidence: The following table includes numbers on the gender of perpetrators and victims of homicide (using statistics from the United States [1]) and assault (using statistics from Norway on the more serious incidents requiring a visit to an urban accident and emergency department [2]).

Genders Homicide (USA) Assault (Norway)
Male → Male 65.3% 74%
Male → Female 22.7% 21%
Female → Male 9.6% 2%
Female → Female 2.4% 4%

Gender patterns in different types of violence can be seen in the 2008 data from Canada. Women are 1.2× more likely than men to be the victims of common assault, which is the less serious and less injurious form of physical assault. Men on the other hand are more often the victims of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm (1.9× more likely), aggravated assault (defined as being wounded, maimed, disfigured, or having your life endangered: 3.6× more likely), robbery (1.9× more likely), and homicide or attempted murder (3.5× more likely) [4].

An even bigger disparity is visible in the Chicago Tribune's page documenting victims of shootings in the city. Of the 100 shootings in a one-month period in early 2015 (January 20th to February 16th), 93 had male victims---and the other 7 were listed as "unknown gender" [4].

Some studies look specifically at rates of violence victimization by strangers. In Canada in 2008, men were 80% of all reported attacks by strangers [5]. In the United States in 2010, men were twice as likely to suffer violence from strangers [6].

[1] http://bit.ly/14Scr7r (“Homicide trends in the U.S.” from U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics)

[2] http://1.usa.gov/14SpK81 (“Gender and physical violence” by Steen and Hunskaar)

[3] http://bit.ly/1BeU619 (“Gender Differences in Police-reported Violent Crime in Canada, 2008” from Statistics Canada)

[4] https://archive.is/WZvvK

(Chicago Tribune page "Chicago shooting victims", last updated 2015/2/19)

[5] https://archive.is/qB16e

("SNAPSHOT: Male Victims of Violent Crime" from National Victims of Crime Awareness Week)

[6] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf ("Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993-2010" from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)

3. Drug addiction and alcoholism

Overview: Women are by no means immune, but statistics do show that addiction affects men disproportionately. This should raise questions about what's pushing men to substance abuse. Are they dealing with traumatic events, harmful attitudes and expectations, or a lack of social support?

Examples/evidence: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 17% of men and 8% of women will meet criteria for alcohol dependence (which is a higher standard than simply binge-drinking) at some point in their lives. They also note that men “consistently have higher rates of alcohol-related deaths and hospitalizations than women” [1]. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health in the United States found that rates of current illicit drug use to be 11.6% for men and 6.9% for women [2], and the 2009 New Jersey Household Survey on Drug Use and Health found that “[m]ales (14%) were significantly more likely than females (5%) to abuse or be dependent on alcohol, drugs or both alcohol and drugs in the past year” [3].

[1] http://1.usa.gov/1guimo6 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Fact Sheets - Excessive Alcohol Use and Risks to Men's Health”)

[2] http://1.usa.gov/1y5QAqF (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration “Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings”)

[3] http://bit.ly/1C0Qca7 (New Jersey Department of Human Services “2009 New Jersey Household Survey on Drug Use and Health”)

4. Suicide

Overview: Like drug/alcohol addiction, there are many women who commit suicide but the fact is that men still kill themselves at disproportionately high rates.

One study reports that although rates of fatal suicide behaviour are higher among men, rates of nonfatal suicide behaviour are higher among women. It says that women have higher rates of suicidal thoughts while there was no gender difference in suicide planning or suicide attempts [1]. The implications of this are not clear, but it is relevant to mention. Do men choose different, more deadly methods? Are they more "certain" or hopeless when engaging in suicidal behaviours, resulting in higher fatality rates? Either way, the end result is more dead men than dead women.

Examples/evidence: Suicide is the single biggest cause of death for men aged 20-45 in England/Wales [2]. In Canada in 2011, the rate of suicide among men was three times higher than among women [3]. In the United States in 2012, men were almost four times more likely to kill themselves. The graph below provides historical data on suicide in the United States [4].

Images: http://i.imgur.com/ikXWibu.png

Middle-aged men and poor men are especially at risk, according to the Department of Health in England [5]. Unfortunately, many people's response to the issue of male suicide is to be more critical than supportive [6].

The Samaritans report says most people have no idea what they can do to combat male suicide. Too many they say, simply “ 'upbraid' men for being 'resistant to help-seeking' or 'not talking about their feelings.' ”

Mental-health specialists especially, says the Samaritans report, “need to move from ‘blaming men for not being like women,’ ” to designing projects and public services that can help them.

[1] https://archive.is/ExTKL

("Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years

United States, 2008-2009" from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

[2] https://archive.is/qwkgF

("More Statistics, Yet Still No Strategy..." from CALM: Campaign Against Living Miserably)

[3] http://bit.ly/1u1g1mf and http://bit.ly/1BVOxVx (“Suicides and suicide rate, by sex and by age group” from Statistics Canada)

[4] http://bit.ly/1rKWJ4R (from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Data & Statistics Fatal Injury Report for 2012)

[5] https://archive.is/vjgx1

(The Guardian article "Suicide numbers rise sharply, especially among middle-aged men")

[6] https://archive.is/jXt36

(Vancouver Sun article "Men and suicide: The silent epidemic")

5. Life expectancy gap

Overview: Men's health is lagging behind women's health according to many metrics. The most important of these is life expectancy, where men are losing out on an average of 4-5 years of life compared to women. Part of the gap (1-2 years) seems to be biological, but there are cultural/social factors (which we can fix) as well.

Examples/evidence: My two main sources are an article “Mars vs. Venus: The gender gap in health” from a 2010 edition of the Harvard Men's Health Watch [1] and the series of papers by Barbara Blatt Kalben called Why Men Die Younger: Causes of Mortality Differences by Sex for the Society of Actuaries [2].

One piece of evidence for why only part of the gap is biological is that it has actually grown over the past 100 years. The table is from the United States, and the chart is from Canada (measured from the age of 7 to take infant mortality out of the picture).
Year Females Males Gender gap
1900 48.3 46.3 2 years
1950 71.1 65.6 5.5 years
2000 79.7 74.3 5.4 years
2007 80.4 75.3 5.1 years

Images: http://i.imgur.com/zieTb8R.png

The German-Austrian Cloister Study provides interesting insight onto how much of the life expectancy gap is biological. Monks and nuns have similar lifestyles, and so their life expectancies are less influenced by the behavioural/social factors that exist in the general population. As it turns out, nuns live just one year longer than monks [3].

The Harvard Men's Health Watch article provides various non-biological reasons for the gap.

1. Men experience more work stress/hostility, which can increase the risk of hypertension, heart attack, and stroke.

2. Men have less social support. Social support has been shown to protect against the common cold, depression, heart attacks, and strokes.

3. Men are more likely to smoke, drink, or do drugs.

4. Men are less likely to go to the doctor and make use of health-care (and actually less likely to have access to it). From the article: "Women are more likely than men to have health insurance and a regular source of health care. According to a major survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, three times as many men as women had not seen a doctor in the previous year ...".

Although that article does not mention it, differences in awareness, attention, and funding between men's health and women's health could also be part of the gap [4].

There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments. Men’s health advocates long have pushed for an Office of Men’s Health to act as a companion to the Office on Women’s Health, established in 1991. Instead of rectifying that disparity, the new health care law intensified it.

[1] http://bit.ly/1vvKc7x or https://archive.is/3roDD

(“Mars vs. Venus: The gender gap in health” from the Harvard Men's Health Watch)

[2] http://bit.ly/1lDnXeg (Why Men Die Younger: Causes of Mortality Differences by Sex from the Society of Actuaries)

[3] http://bit.ly/1vBZeMo ("Causes of Male Excess Mortality: Insights from Cloistered Populations" by Marc Luy), http://www.klosterstudie.de/ (German-Austrian Cloister Study homepage")

[4] https://archive.is/OSCMy

(The Daily Caller article “Does Obamacare discriminate against men?”)

6. Workplace injury and death

Overview: Men are quite a bit more likely than women to get injured at work, and they're overwhelmingly more likely to die at work.

Examples/evidence: In the United Kingdom in 2010/11, the rate of major injuries was almost twice as high for men as it was for women (130.5 compared to 68.8 per 100,000 workers) [1]. The difference in workplace deaths is even more stark. A study of workplace deaths in Canada from 1993 to 2005 found that the number of male deaths in 2005 alone was more than double the total number female deaths in the whole 22 year period from 1993 to 2005 [2]. In the United States in 2006, men were 54% of the workforce but 92% of workplace deaths [2].

[1] https://archive.is/uj0nC

(“Reported injuries to employees by age and gender” from the UK Health and Safety Executive)

[2] http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2006-04.PDF ("Five Deaths a Day: Workplace Fatalities in Canada, 1993-2005" by Andrew Sharpe and Jill Hardt for the Centre for the Study of Living Standards)

[3] http://1.usa.gov/1pvu0Ch (“Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

7. Hate crimes targeting gay men

Overview: Hate crimes based on sexual orientation disproportionately target homosexual men, with homosexual women being the victims noticeably less often.

Examples/evidence: Here's the break-down of sexual orientation motivated hate crimes in the United States in 2012 [1]:

• Anti-male homosexual bias — 54.6%
• Anti-homosexual bias (i.e. gender-neutral homophobia) — 28.0%
• Anti-female homosexual bias — 12.3%
• Anti-bisexual bias — 3.1%
• Anti-heterosexual bias — 2.0%

In Canada in the same year, 80% of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation targeted men [2]. Among all hate crimes, those based on sexual orientation were the most likely to involve assault and physical injuries.

The targeting of gay men (over lesbian women) for hate crimes is not unexpected, considering the history of state repression of homosexuality targeting gay men. In the United Kingdom, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (also known as "An Act to make further provision for the Protection of Women and Girls, the suppression of brothels, and other purposes") recriminalized male homosexuality as "gross indecency". Until decriminalization in 1967, 50,000 gay men were convicted, including author Oscar Wilde (sentenced to two years of hard labour in 1895) and mathematician Alan Turing (who accepted chemical castration as an alternative to prison in 1952; he killed himself two years later). Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Home Secretary 1951-54) talked of a "new drive against male vice" to "rid England of this plague" [3] [4] [5].

A similar targeting of gay men was found in Nazi Germany, although with even more severe consequences. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "[t]he vast majority of homosexual victims were males; lesbians were not subjected to systematic persecution". Many survivors have testified that in concentration camps, homosexuals were treated especially harshly (compared to other inmate groups), not only by guards but also other inmates. Victims of the homosexual holocaust were widely refused both recognition and reparations after the war. Some even remained imprisoned by the post-war government [6] [7].

Interestingly, according to the 2012 data from Canada, men are more likely than women to be the victims of all types of hate crimes, not just those related to sexual orientation (although those had the highest disparity at 80% male victims). The other four categories were race/ethnicity, religion, other, and unknown, and they ranged from 61% to 72% male victims [8].

[1] https://archive.is/uFuaI

(FBI 2012 Hate Crime Statistics page “Incidents and Offenses”)

[2] https://archive.is/d62fo

(Statistics Canada page “Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2012”)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885

(Wikipedia page "Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885")

[4] http://archive.is/a2CQx

(The Independent article "Gay men call for equity following Alan Turing pardon")

[5] http://archive.is/IvGnv

(The Daily Beast article "The Castration of Alan Turing, Britain’s Code-Breaking WWII Hero")

[6] http://archive.is/OHMEA

(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia page "Persecution of Homosexuals")

[7] http://archive.is/0g9Y

(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia page "Lesbians and the Third Reich")

[8] http://archive.is/EMpR1

(Statistics Canada page "Characteristics of hate crime victims, by motivation, Canada, 2012")

8. Sexual assault in prison

Overview: The fact that men make up such a large majority of the prison population means that the prevalence of rape and sexual assault in prison (and our culture's attitude of indifference) is especially a concern for men.

Examples/evidence: Different studies report quite different numbers on sexual assault rates in prison. Here are three studies that provide a range of numbers, starting with the lowest.

1. Finding: 1.91% of prisoners have experienced a completed sexual assault over their lifetime [1].
2. Finding: 4.0% of prison inmates (and 3.2% of jail inmates) reported one or more incidents of sexual victimization (either by another inmate or by faculty staff) in the previous 12 months [2].
3. Finding: 21% of inmates had experienced "pressured or forced sexual contact" since being incarcerated in their state [3].

The third study explains why findings differ so much. First, male inmates under-report sexual assault, so non-anonymous surveys give lower numbers. Second, different definitions of sexual assault change the numbers substantially. Completed rapes are much rarer than genital fondling and failed attempts at intercourse.

[1] http://1.usa.gov/17spDkI ("Prison Rape: A Critical Review of the Literature" by Gerald G. Gaes and Andrew L. Goldberg)

[2] http://1.usa.gov/1nHaS1N ("Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)

[3] http://bit.ly/17sGrbg ("Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prison Facilities for Men" by Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson)

9. Gendercide

Overview: Gendercide (gender-specific mass killing) often targets men, although the gender of the victims generally receives less attention than when women experience gendercide. Adam Jones, genocide researcher and political science professor, points out that targeting men can seem so “natural” that “almost no media commentator bothers to mention it” [1]. In the opening essay of his compilation Gendercide and Genocide, Jones argues that the group most consistently targeted for mass killings throughout history has been non-combatant men between the ages of 15 and 55, as they are typically seen as the largest danger to the conquering force [2].

Examples/evidence: In what the former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan called the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War, over 8,000 unarmed civilians [3] were massacred in the small mountain town of Srebrenica in Bosnia in 1995. Two characteristics united the victims: they were Muslim, and they were male [4].

Although Srebrenica had been designated a U.N. “safe area” three months earlier, “[t]housands of men and boys as young as 10 were rounded up and murdered ... Serbian TV footage shows woman and children being separated from the men and put on buses” [5]. The busses were searched to make sure men weren't on them [6]. According to the BBC, 23,000 women and children were allowed to leave while men aged 12-77 were taken "for interrogation"---two days later, reports of massacres started to emerge [7]. The “five-day orgy of slaughter” included 60 truckloads of male refugees being "taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles", and other victims being “hunted down like dogs and slaughtered” and pushed into mass graves with industrial bulldozers. It was described by a war-crimes tribunal as “truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history” [5].

David Benatar also gives the Rwandan genocide as an example of gendercide. In The Second Sexism (chapter 4), he explains that Hutus "were determined to seek out and murder Tutsi boys … They examined very young infants, even new-borns, to see if they were boys or girls. Little boys were executed on the spot."

[1] http://bit.ly/179RhTW (Adam Jones' article “Terminal Sexism: Men, women and war in ex-Yugoslavia”)

[2] http://adamjones.freeservers.com/g_and_g.htm (Gendercide and Genocide book page)

[3] http://nyti.ms/1xG5lwY (New York Times article “Mladic Arrives in The Hague”)

[4] http://bit.ly/179Ro1H (Adam Jones' article “Pity the Innocent Men”)

[5] http://cnn.it/1BuQbuE (CNN article “Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'”)

[6] http://bit.ly/165HfD1 (document from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia)

[7] https://archive.is/gLVGY
(BBC article "Srebrenica massacre verdicts upheld at war crimes tribunal")

I hear all this talk about women's safety when out on the streets (a real issue which I do acknowledge) and how we as men need to do our part to make sure they feel comfortable, safe, and that we hold other men accountable when doing the same thing. Absolutely have no problem with this. But one of the main issues men have is a rise in male loneliness and the expectation to be the one to take an active role in interaction especially those that are romantic in nature. How are we supposed to take the lead and approach while keeping women safe at the same time when approaching her could make her feel uncomfortable, even in safe environments such as social groups, bars & clubs, workplaces, etc?

I found a couple of videos which explains why men are out here street harassing women. The link to this video there's a section called "bottom line"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZiaTDxJ-rQ

The guy here basically goes on to explain that a woman is not gonna make a move on him, that he needs to show her he's the man and have a wolf mentality. Obviously, the way he worded this is just wrong but this is the mentality I see from men who are trying to be the take charge types. I don't think this kind of thinking comes from nowhere. Men already deal with the expectation to approach and make the first move. If you put that much pressure on men, it's gonna make them wanna find communities that will tell them how to do exactly that. Guess where they turn to? The redpill/PUA. These are the communities that teach them the alpha-beta nonsense, how they got ideas that "a woman loves a confident masculine man, show her that by letting her feel your strong presence" and they learn messed up tips and tactics to do exactly that, which then leads to men making women feel uncomfortable.

For anyone that watches the 12 hour video of a woman walking down the street, within those hours, a lot of men came out to talk to her. I don't think these men would be doing that if they didn't face any expectations to be the pursuers in courtship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A&ab_channel=RobBliss

Over 90% of women don't initiate interactions with men first & often expect them to do it, and I think this is a huge problem that's contributing to both men & women's issues. Safety is a big issue for women on the daily and I think male expectations in dating are a big factor for that. The expectations for men to do something first will make women not take an active role, resulting in most men feeling undesired (& also lonely tho male loneliness is a multi-faceted issue), and when they decide to do something about it, they turn to communities that will teach them strategies beyond the mainstream to give them that success, which then turns into having a lot of men out there street harassing women. It doesn't just have to be street harassment. This can also happen in social groups, friend groups, bars and harassment can very much happen there.

So the first step here is for society to stop expecting men to make the first move and not just that. Stop expecting them to read signs (especially signs women gives as an invitation as her "first move" as they're subtle, not obvious), stop expecting men to start flirting, and stop expecting men to be the first ones to initiate conversations about sex. We should start telling women to be more active (and obviously active) and do some of these things to take the pressure off of men.

This doesn't mean that dating should completely fall into the woman's hands. What I am saying ultimately is to not have expectations of any gender to bear the heavy burden of doing everything. Once we get rid of those expectations, then we can start implementing some gender neutral courtship rules that allows men and women to take active agency without much pressure. But I don't believe we as a society (given our current practices) should partake in active agency with dating until we've gotten rid of those expectations.

Taking the expectations off isn't going to stop SOME men from being psychos, there's always going to be bad apples in society that makes things uncomfortable for everybody. But I don't believe women are getting approached only by these types. Chances are, they're getting approached by men who are dealing with societal expectations of being a man (this doesn't mean u should entertain him. If he makes you feel unsafe just do what u have to do to gtfo there. Just cuz men have the expectation doesn't mean u throw away your need to feel safe. If no man is allowed to approach on the streets, then any man, even if he is decent and friendly in their approach, should be doing that as that is street harassment and would make you feel uncomfortable.). How is it that the average man can go a day without having a woman or another man bother him, but women can't go a whole day without having any man try his shot with her? This all goes back to the expectations we have of men.

We should not be doing any active courting in dating nor give out any dating advice until we have reached a point where society doesn't expect men to be the initiators all the time. That means adults telling boys that they don't need to take up that role and that it's okay for women to make the first move. That means women telling their female friends to not expect guys to make the first move and do the heavy lifting, especially in the beginning stages.

We have already been told not to assume that a woman wants us to approach just because she's dressed a certain way. We have already been told that we shouldn't be out here bothering anyone on the streets. We have already been told that if we get told "no" or get a "no" signal, we accept it and move on. Absolutely fine with that. But we cannot have these rules and then conform men to the expectations of being the pursuer all the damn time and not expect that most of these interactions will turn into street harassment, especially when these men turn into martyrs when they do go to TRP/PUA communities that will tell them practical yet messed up tips that just end up making women feel unsafe. This is just backwards and will only ensure that this toxic cycle continues.